175
The American Age Is Over (www.theatlantic.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/collapse@slrpnk.net
132 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children)

It is possible to be for example against US influence in Syria and against Assad the same time, you know?

Of course, but pretty much nobody who uses terms like "tankie" acknowledges that in practice.

When I say that I oppose US intervention in, say, North Korea, then I'm immediately hit with all kinds of horror stories about how everyone has to get the same haircut or whatever. If I refute that misinformation and insist that I don't want the US to overthrow their government, then I will inevitably be accused of "defending North Korea," labelled as a "tankie" and then subject to the whole rumor mill about "what tankies believe" that's completely detached from reality or anything I actually say or believe. Next thing you know, I'm being accused of wanting every country in the world to become like North Korea. If I deny that, then it's assumed that I'm just concealing my "real" views.

It's the same way in every conflict in history since the dawn of time. When I was 10 years old asking why we didn't respond to 9/11 by "turning the other cheek" like I'd been taught, people looked at me like I was some kind of "terrorist sympathizer" because "you're either with us or against us." Every single time I have opposed any conflict, I have been accused of "supporting" or "defending" the other side, regardless of what I actually say or what reasons I actually provide.

There's no use trying to fight it. Instead of trying to, and looking like I'm trying to weasel out of the label like I have something to hide, I'd rather just accept it so that I have some ability to speak for what us "tankies" actually believe. Starting with, opposition to building more tanks. Opposition to building tanks is the defining characteristics of a "tankie" because if you don't want to build and deploy tanks then you're assumed to "support" whatever enemy-of-the-week they're to be used against, who is no doubt "authoritarian." Likewise, anti-militarism will cause me to be labelled as a "campist" for "supporting" the target of that militarism. When you're being accused of such things, nobody gives a shit about the nuance between "supporting" or "opposing action against," and even if you insist on it they'll just say you're lying and that you actually do support the "bad guy."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    I find it very hard to believe people would label you a tankie if your position were that of a principled pacifist. Sure, many people also dislike pacifist positions, but it is not possible to mistake the one for the other. Thus I have to assume you are not being genuine here and did in fact give reasons to people to call you a tankie 🤷

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (12 children)

    it is not possible to mistake the one for the other

    You say, immediately before accusing me of lying about my positions, and assuming that whoever accused me of being a tankie must have been both correct and acting in good faith.

    To be clear, I am not a strict pacifist, although I was at one time. The shift from pacifist to "tankie" is very small, basically just one exception. Before, I believed in "no war" and now I believe in "no war but class war." The vast majority of war and violence is not class war, it's just parts of the ruling class fighting each other over resources. There are only a handful of states that even call themselves socialist and none of them are at war, so that one exception isn't very relevant.

    If I actually did "support" Assad, then how would that look different materially from opposing intervention? I'm an American, I have no control over Syrian domestic policy except through my state intervening. Unless I'm going to fly over there myself and pick up a gun on his behalf, or unless I'm going to somehow convince the US government to do a complete 180 and prop him up, then the distinction is merely rhetorical. And a rhetorical distinction, far from being "impossible" to ignore, is in fact very easy to ignore. If I were secretly an Assadist, then wouldn't I be advocating for the US to adopt the exact same policies that I would if I were a pacifist or isolationist? Then, if I advocate for those policies, it is trivially easy to accuse me of secretly "supporting" Assad, which is why people did so, and why they do the same in every other conflict.

    This isn't rocket science, it's not some new thing. Accusing anyone who opposes war of supporting the enemy is a tactic as old as history. As Goering said, "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." If you ever have the occasion to oppose a popular war, I can promise that you'll encounter the same accusations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    It is very easy to counter such accusations by making clear that it is a pacifist position you take. The arguments then will by around pacifism and the issues with that and not if you secretly support Assad. Try it some time 🤷

    But since you avoided that term until I brought it up, I must assume you are indeed not considering yourself a pacifist, and then your rethoric falls flat and becomes a "if for some reason I can frame a conflict as class war then it is ok". And if you in turn apply that to conflicts like the Syrian civil war, then people accusing you of a double standard when it comes to your favourite dictator of the day might have a point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children)

    Try it some time

    I did. I did when I was 10 years old and knew nothing but the stories about Jesus my parents told me, well into my 20's, reading Tolstoy, and the rhetoric and accusations were always the same.

    Are you an American? Do you understand what the mood was like, trying to oppose war while growing up in a "post-9/11 world?" "It is very easy to counter such accusations by making clear that it is a pacifist position you take," what an utterly ridiculous thing to say. As if all the people whose blood was boiling with bloodlust, thirsting for revenge, fantasizing about torture and mass murder, talking about "turning the sand to glass," will suddenly be cool if you just say, "Um, actually, I'm only against you because I'm a pacifist." Only someone who's never experienced it could think that way. Nobody gives a single shit about your reasons, you will always be the villain and you will always be assigned the most damning motives possible.

    You are childishly naive, and I wish that I could live in the world you think we live in.

    I must assume you are indeed not considering yourself a pacifist

    You don't have to assume, I just told you that I'm not a pacifist.

    “if for some reason I can frame a conflict as class war then it is ok”. And if you in turn apply that to conflicts like the Syrian civil war, then people accusing you of a double standard when it comes to your favourite dictator of the day might have a point.

    Do you seriously believe that I tried to frame Syria as a class war with Assad as some kind of socialist hero, and I'm now lying about it? And you think that's more plausible than that people simply tried to discredit my opposition to US intervention?

    This is an utterly ridiculous conversation. You're claiming "this would never happen" while simultaneously doing the exact thing you claim wouldn't happen! You are ignoring my actual positions and assigning me the most damning positions you can, while simultaneously trying to deny that anyone would ever do such a thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

    I am not American, but old enough to remember the situation around 9/11 well, and sure there was some of what you describe, but the discussion would still be around issue people percieve with pacifism and not accusing someone of actually supporting a dictatorship. No one seriously accused Germany of supporting Saddam Hussain for refusing to join the 2003 Irak war for example.

    But if you go "uhm actually I am not a pacifist" and then name a highly selective list of conflicts you oppose like you did here (which included Syria btw), then you can't really complain about people pointing out the hypocricy of that and suspect that you based your opposition purely on a campist mindset (which given the list, is pretty obvious).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (8 children)

    the discussion would still be around issue people percieve with pacifism

    No it wouldn't. Because they would simply accuse me of not actually being a pacifist, and instead being a "terrorist sympathizer." Just like how you are, currently, accusing me of not actually holding the positions I claim to. How is this difficult to understand when you're literally doing it right now?

    No one seriously accused Germany of supporting Saddam Hussain for refusing to join the 2003 Irak war for example.

    No one? Did President Bush not say, "You're either with us or with the terrorists?"

    But if you go “uhm actually I am not a pacifist” and then name a highly selective list of conflicts you oppose like you did here (which included Syria btw), then you can’t really complain about people pointing out the hypocracy of that and suspect that you based your opposition purely on a campist mindset (which given the list, is pretty obvious).

    "Highly selective" and "pretty obviously based on a campist mindset." Or, I'm talking about the US because I live in the US and it's the only country that I have some nominal ability to influence. Why would I focus on condemning Assad, do you think he'd read it and have a change of heart? And it's also literally in a thread about the US.

    This is exactly what I'm talking about. You expect me to constantly shift the focus to criticizing other countries, and anything short of that means that I'm secretly loyal to them. It's ridiculous. No different than accusing me of being a terrorist sympathizer when I condemned the war in Afghanistan, because, "Why are you talking about that, why aren't you talking about Al Qaida's crimes?"

    At the very least you can't have it both ways, you can accuse me of whatever motives you want (believe me, I'm used to it) but you don't get to keep accusing me of having such secret motives while simultaneously trying to claim that no one would ever accuse me of having such secret motives.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (7 children)

    You sleep in the bed you make yourself.

    The US is involved in way more conflicts around the world than the ones you listed, yet somehow you chose to focus nearly exclusively on the ones where the opposing sides are horrible dictatorships, all the while insisting that you are actually ok with armed conflict if it is against the right enemy. So the logical conclusion is that you consider these horrible dictatorships to be the wrong enemy...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

    You sleep in the bed you make yourself.

    If that were true, you and others would attack me based on my actual positions rather than the ones you make up and assign to me.

    The US is involved in way more conflicts around the world than the ones you listed, yet somehow you chose to focus nearly exclusively on the ones where the opposing sides are horrible dictatorships

    I'm curious which ones you think I left off.

    all the while insisting that you are actually ok with armed conflict if it is against the right enemy. So the logical conclusion is that you consider these horrible dictatorships to be the wrong enemy…

    Did I say that? I don't believe I did. The narrow range of conflicts I'm ok with don't really have anything to do with it being "the right enemy."

    I am ok with conflict when it is necessary for survival or when there is a significant difference to the average person who wins. For example, WWII was a fight for survival, if one side won, entire races would be exterminated. WWI was not. Therefore, although many of the countries in WWI were despicable, colonial empires, very much "the right enemies," I would not have supported the war because it would just be a question of which colonial power came up on top, while ordinary people would be fed into a pointless meat grinder regardless. Furthermore, the correct position was to push to avoid the war as much as possible, because even though it involved "the right enemies," it was pointlessly destructive and the damage was not worth it.

    But if we were having this conversation a hundred years ago (as people were), then if we were British, then when I opposed the war with Germany you would say that I must be secretly loyal to the Kaiser, and if we were German, then when I opposed the war with Russia you would accuse me of being secretly loyal to the Tsar. This is exactly the justification that social democrats across Europe did historically use to support the war. It is, again, a tale as old as time.

    The US has had no business going after any enemy, right or wrong, after expending itself on a pointless, decades long occupation in an avoidable war halfway around the globe, with multiple domestic crises happening including the rise of fascism. If we don't refocus and deal with our shit, then we will burn out and be unable to deal with any enemy, right or wrong. If the fascists have their way, we will be the right enemy, that the rest of the world will have to deal with. There is no external threat anywhere in the world that comes remotely close to our internal threats.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Further up you listed seven conflicts and complained about people critizising you for the position you took. Of those seven, all but one or two are clearly horrible dictatorships, and the unclear cases are only marginally better, and one of them is even an imperialistic act of aggression threatening the very existence of the side the US supported. So clearly you are applying very different standards in a hypocritical way to these conflicts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

    Just because a country is a dictatorship, does that mean I should support war against it? Do you want to invade Saudi Arabia? Or do you think Saudi Arabia is not a horrible dictatorship?

    There is no "hypocrisy" or "double standard" that I am applying. I am simply applying a different standard than yours.

    So long as the US is as burned out as it is, I will oppose involvement in every conflict, unless it presents an imminent, existential threat that is greater than the threat of domestic fascism. And no such greater threat exists, anywhere in the world. If you think there is, then you are underestimating the threat the American right poses. All other priorities are secondary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    Pointing to these conflicts specifically and then complaining about people suspecting ulterior motives, when you could have simply taken a pacifist or even just an isolationist position (which would have been much easier to defend) is usually a sign that you are indeed a campist. If you don't want to be mistaken as one, I recommend you reconsider your arguments and who you associate yourself with (e.g. lemmy.ml).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    when you could have simply taken a pacifist or even just an isolationist position

    What? I'm not a pacifist, or even an isolationist, really. You're saying I should've lied about my positions? That's not something I do.

    If I said I was a pacifist, then you could criticize me and say, "Well what about WWII?" And that's a completely valid criticism of pacifism that I agree with. So what would I be supposed to say then? "Well, actually, I was lying and I'm not really a pacifist?"

    If I said I was an isolationist, then you could criticize me based on things like tariffs. In reality, I support international trade so long as it is fair and not exploitative. So once again, I would have to say, "Well, actually, I was just lying."

    That is nonsense. There's a reason (well, several reasons) I don't lie about my political positions, and it's that there's enough nuance and complexity to my views that if I wasted time and energy lying about them, then how could I expect anyone to arrive at understanding or agreeing with what I really believe? Way too much extra work when I can just be honest and direct.

    I recommend you reconsider your arguments and who you associate yourself with (e.g. lemmy.ml).

    Now why would I do that? Marxist-Leninists are some of the only people in the world I've ever encountered who actually have their heads screwed on straight and their priorities in order. They are the only ones who actually take the threat of the American right seriously and recognize that going around playing world police is not the correct approach in these conditions.

    I can't even discuss things with people like you, because the moment I say I oppose war (or most wars), you start assigning nefarious motives to me, trying to descredit me and painting me as a bad person.

    Also, I think you know that what you're telling me is nonsense. If I made an account on .world, and I went around saying that I condemn Russia but I don't support sending weapons to Ukraine, even if I lied and claimed to be a pacifist or isolationist, everyone would still call me a tankie and say that I support Russia, and they'd probably throw in a whole bunch of other stuff too, like that I think Russia is still socialist or whatever. Y'all are constantly making shit up about us like that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Typical ML response, trying to play the victim when someone points out the obvious contradictions in the campist mindset 🤦

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago*

    You haven't pointed out any contradictions, nor shown my mindset to be in any way campist, nor am I trying to play the victim. Bullshit as usual.

    The only contradiction in this conversation is your implication that wars against dictatorships are automatically justified, while refusing to answer what I asked about Saudi Arabia.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent